By Deborah Nnamdi
US President Donald Trump has imposed an additional 10 percent tariff on imports into the United States, just hours after the Supreme Court struck down a central pillar of his sweeping trade policy in a 6-3 ruling.
Trump signed the new tariff order in the Oval Office, announcing on social media that it would take effect “almost immediately.” The duty is scheduled to begin on February 24 and will last for 150 days, according to a White House fact sheet.
The measure applies broadly, including to US trading partners that had previously negotiated tariff deals with the administration. However, exemptions will remain for sectors under separate investigations, such as pharmaceuticals, and for goods entering under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
A White House official said the administration would explore ways to implement “more appropriate or pre-negotiated tariff rates” in the future.
The move follows a significant legal setback earlier Friday when the Supreme Court ruled that the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) — a law Trump had relied upon to impose tariffs on individual countries — does not grant the president authority to levy such duties.
Delivering the majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote that if Congress intended to give the president the “distinct and extraordinary power to impose tariffs” under the law, it would have done so explicitly. “IEEPA contains no reference to tariffs or duties,” he said.
The ruling marks Trump’s most significant Supreme Court defeat since returning to office 13 months ago, though it does not affect separate sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum, and other goods imposed under different authorities. Ongoing government investigations could still result in additional industry-focused duties.
Reacting angrily, Trump — who nominated two of the justices in the majority — accused members of the court of lacking courage and alleged, without evidence, that foreign interests had influenced the decision.
“I’m ashamed of certain members of the court, absolutely ashamed, for not having the courage to do what’s right for our country,” he told reporters. He insisted the ruling ultimately left him “more powerful,” saying a president could charge even higher tariffs to protect the country.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, speaking at the Economic Club of Dallas, said the administration’s alternative approach would produce “virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
Financial markets reacted positively to the court’s decision, with Wall Street shares posting modest gains. Business groups welcomed the ruling, with the National Retail Federation saying it provided “much-needed certainty” for companies.
However, uncertainty remains over whether businesses and consumers will receive refunds for tariffs already collected. During court proceedings, the administration said companies would be reimbursed if the levies were deemed unlawful, but the ruling did not address the issue directly.
The Penn Wharton Budget Model estimated the decision could generate up to $175 billion in refunds. California Governor Gavin Newsom called the tariffs an “illegal cash grab” and demanded immediate repayment with interest.
But Senator Elizabeth Warren warned there was currently “no legal mechanism” for many consumers and small businesses to recover the money already paid.
Meanwhile, the Budget Lab at Yale University projected that the effective average tariff rate facing consumers would fall to 9.1 percent following the ruling, down from 16.9 percent, though still the highest level since 1946, excluding 2025.
Close US trading partners, including the European Union and Britain, said they were studying the implications of the decision. Canada described the levies as “unjustified” but warned of potential new trade pressures.
Candace Laing, president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, cautioned that Ottawa should brace for “new, blunter mechanisms” to reassert trade pressure, potentially with broader and more disruptive effects.
